QUICK HITS

 

• When the buyers of a $937,400 home backed out of the deal, they claimed the contract was void because deadlines had been missed.
• The court found that their actions—like paying deposits and not cancelling the agreement earlier—showed they intended to proceed until they later breached the contract. 
• The seller was awarded $232,400 in damages, the difference between the original price and eventual resale price. 

When a buyer fails to complete the purchase of a property, disputes often arise over who is at fault. In some cases, buyers may argue that the seller breached the agreement by missing deadlines. In such cases, the doctrine of repudiation of contract comes into play. It requires an objective evaluation of both parties’ actions, as demonstrated in the case Vandermolen Homes Inc. v. Mani.

Key facts of the APS

In January 2022, the defendant buyers signed an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for the purchase of a single-family home in Exeter, Ont. from the plaintiff builder for $937,400, with a scheduled completion date of Aug. 31, 2022. The buyers paid a deposit of $5,000 upon signing.

The APS was conditional upon approval by the buyers’ lawyer and arrangement of suitable financing. The deadline for confirmation of the fulfillment of conditions was 6:00 pm on Jan. 20, 2022. A further deposit of $88,740 was due upon removal of the conditions.

On Jan. 20, 2022, the buyers offered to extend the conditional terms to Jan. 26, 2022.  The offer to extend was stated to be irrevocable until 11:59 pm on Jan. 21, 2022, failing which the offer to extend became null and void. The seller did not sign the confirmation of acceptance until Jan. 22, 2022. On Jan. 26, 2022, the buyers nevertheless signed a waiver of the conditions and paid the second deposit.

Breakdown in communication and escalation

Nothing further occurred until May 2022, when the seller began to email and text the buyers regarding interior decor selections, with no response. A dispute subsequently arose over whether the buyers had received these emails and texts.

The buyers took the position that since they heard nothing from the seller for several months following Jan. 26, 2022, they assumed the deal was not proceeding. However, there was no evidence that the buyers contacted the seller to request the return of their deposits or to notify them that they did not intend to complete the purchase during that time period.

On Aug. 10, 2022, the seller’s real estate lawyer wrote to the buyers’ lawyer asking how they intended to take title. On Aug. 12, 2022, the seller spoke to one of the buyers regarding a pre-delivery inspection. The buyer advised that he needed to speak to his wife (the co-buyer) who was in India at the time. He gave no indication that the purchase would not be completed.

Repudiation of the agreement and market impacts

On Aug. 17, 2022, the buyers contacted the seller and cancelled the pre-delivery inspection, which was scheduled for later that day.  On the same day, the buyers’ lawyer advised the seller for the first time that they would not be able to complete the purchase.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the seller’s lawyer spoke to and emailed the buyers’ lawyer to confirm whether or not the buyers were going to complete the transaction. The buyers’ lawyer confirmed that his clients were unable to close the transaction and requested that the property be re-listed so that “the damages can be lessened”.

The seller retained a Realtor and listed the property for sale for $849,000, but there were no offers. In February 2023, the price was reduced to $799,900, without success, and in April 2023, the listing price was dropped to $749,900. While conditional offers were received, the property did not sell.

In September 2023, the price was reduced again to $724,900 and the property was finally sold for $705,000 in October 2023.

The seller sued the original buyers for damages of more than $175,000 relating to their breach of the APS, and brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that this was a straightforward case of buyers’ remorse.

In response, the buyers took the position that the APS was “dead” when the conditions in the APS were not fulfilled by Jan. 21, 2022. As a matter of law, they pointed to the term in the APS which stated “time is of the essence”, which generally means that a time limit in an agreement is essential, such that breach of the time limit will permit the innocent party to terminate, or rescind, the contract.

Prior decisions have held that the effect of a party’s repudiation of an agreement depends on the election by the non-repudiating (or “innocent”) party as to whether or not to terminate the agreement. If that party treats the contract as still being in full force and effect, the contract remains in force and effect for both sides.  However, if the non-repudiating party accepts the repudiation, the contract is terminated, and the parties are discharged from future obligations.

Determining who is in breach of contract

To determine whether the party in breach has an intention not to be bound by the agreement, the courts assess whether a reasonable person would conclude that the breaching party no longer intends to be bound by it.

In the case at hand, the buyers argued that they had not expressly indicated that they wished to revive the APS after the deadline for waiving conditions. The court was not persuaded by this argument, however, given the buyers’ own conduct in treating the APS as still being in force despite the deadline missed by the seller on Jan. 21, 2022.  

In that regard, the buyers delivered a waiver of conditions on Jan. 26, 2022, and paid the second deposit by cheque, which was cashed by the seller without any protest from them. The seller continued to construct the home over the ensuing months and the buyers did not request the return of the deposits totalling almost $100,000, prior to the commencement of the litigation. Viewed objectively through the lens of a reasonable person, the buyers did not demonstrate that they no longer wished to be bound by the APS.

The court’s assessment and damages 

The court therefore concluded that the APS became binding on Jan. 26, 2022. Although the APS could have been terminated by the buyers after the seller missed the deadline, they did not elect to treat it as at an end.  Rather, they continued to treat the APS as being in full force and effect until Aug. 17, 2022, when it was anticipatorily breached.

As for damages, the measure for contractual breach is generally “expectation loss,” namely the amount required to put the innocent party in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed as agreed.

Although the buyers contended that the seller had failed to take appropriate steps in marketing the property for sale, they did not obtain an appraisal to challenge the price obtained by the seller. It is well-settled law that the onus of proof to establish a failure to mitigate is on the defendants. The buyers failed to meet this onus.

The seller was therefore entitled to the full difference of $232,400.00 based upon the lower sale price of the home, along with property taxes and utilities paid during the relisting period, less the deposits paid. While this figure may seem high, the buyers are fortunate that the damages were not substantially greater. 

There have been many cases in Ontario in 2024 where the difference between the original contract price and the subsequent resale price obtained by a seller has been much larger due to the change in market conditions. 

QUICK HITS

• In Ali v. Patel, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that no binding agreement of purchase and sale was formed because the seller’s inclusion of Schedule B, which was not signed by the buyer, constituted a counteroffer rather than acceptance of the buyer’s offer.
• The court emphasized that a binding contract requires a “meeting of the minds” on all essential terms, which was absent in this case as the buyer neither signed nor agreed to the amended terms.
• Consequently, the buyer was not liable for the $50,000 deposit, illustrating the importance of ensuring all terms are finalized and agreed upon before declaring an agreement binding.

In Ali v. Patel, 2024 ONSC 3505 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that a binding agreement of purchase and sale had not been formed between a seller and buyer because the seller had added a schedule which had not been signed by the buyer.’

The buyer’s unconditional offer

On Jun. 5, 2023, the buyer made an unconditional offer to purchase the seller’s property, which was irrevocable until 11:59 pm on the following day. The offer to purchase contained an offer summary document, an offer of purchase and sale, and a Schedule A. 

On the evening of Jun. 6, 2023, the seller’s agent sent the signed offer back by email. The price, deposit, closing date and Schedule A remained unchanged. However, the seller added a notation on the first page of the agreement indicating that it now included a Schedule B. The cover email stated: “Can you have your clients initial Schedule B and on the first page that there is a Schedule B?  Accepted offer and deposit info attached.” There was no new irrevocable date proposed. 

The form of the Schedule B document included provisions dealing with issues such as defined “banking days” and how the parties would conclude the transaction in the event that banks and registry offices were closed on the anticipated closing date, the timing and form of deposit and where the keys would be left. The MLS listing for the property included a stipulation that all offers were required to include Schedule B.

Schedule B was not attached to the agent’s initial email enclosing the signed offer. A few minutes later, however, the agent re-sent the documents, this time attaching Schedule B, under cover of an email stating “Sorry. Use this.” The buyer did not respond or deliver the $50,000 deposit required by the agreement.

The controversy over Schedule B

The next morning, on Jun. 7, 2023, the buyer advised that they would be unable to proceed with the transaction for unforeseen family reasons. The buyer sent the seller a mutual release later that day. The seller did not sign the release. Rather, the seller’s agent sent an email advising that her clients would hold the buyer liable for any loss or damages.

The seller re-listed the property. One week later the seller sold the property for $25,000 less than the previous buyer had agreed to pay.

Litigation ensued and the seller ultimately brought a motion for summary judgment concerning the buyer’s liability for the $50,000 deposit. The seller argued that there was a binding agreement and that they were entitled to the $50,000 deposit that should have been paid by the buyer.

A “counteroffer” is a non-acceptance of a previous offer

The motion turned on the issue of whether the addition of Schedule B in the final version of the agreement and the demand from the seller that the buyer acknowledge the Schedule by signatures and initials, was a counteroffer that needed to be accepted by the buyer to form a binding agreement.

The court referred to the principle that—by definition—a “counteroffer” is a non-acceptance of a previous offer. In order for a binding agreement to be formed, there must be a meeting of the minds. The court may look beyond the formal written document, to the words and conduct of the parties, if all the essential terms have been agreed upon.

First, the seller argued that there was a binding agreement in place because Schedule B did not include essential elements of the contract.

The motion judge noted that the circumstances were unusual because Schedule B did not address what would typically be considered necessary and essential clauses to find that there had been a meeting of the minds and the conclusion of a binding agreement. 

“Their return of the agreement including Schedule B was therefore a ‘counteroffer’ which the buyer was free to accept—or not.”

However, the treatment of Schedule B by the seller as a necessary inclusion in any final agreement indicated that it was essential in their view. Their return of the agreement including Schedule B was therefore a “counteroffer” which the buyer was free to accept—or not.

Second, the seller argued that they had accepted the buyer’s offer without attaching Schedule B, so a binding agreement was struck, and their later communication which included Schedule B came after a contract already existed. This argument was rejected since the failure to include Schedule B in the agent’s first email was obviously inadvertent, as is evident in the wording of the follow-up email stating “Sorry. Use this”.

Counteroffer or binding agreement?

The motion judge commented that the argument might be more persuasive if the facts were that the seller had fully accepted the offer and then later changed their mind to decide that they wanted to include a new Schedule or additional provisions to the deal. 

The argument then would be that, in fact, there was no counteroffer and a binding offer was in place, and any events thereafter could not impact the already existing contract. However, that is not what occurred.

Rather, the signed counteroffer was inadvertently sent without Schedule B. The email referenced Schedule B and asked that the buyer initial the first page of the offer document and sign Schedule B. 

In the motion judge’s view, giving effect to the seller’s argument would have ignored the fundamental contractual law principle that a contract requires a meeting of the minds to be formed. Here, there was no meeting of the minds as the buyer did not sign or accept any agreement that included a Schedule B.

No binding agreement, no deposit liability

In the result, the court found on a balance of probabilities, that the returned agreement was a counteroffer, and that the seller viewed Schedule B as a necessary component of a concluded agreement. As the counteroffer was never accepted or signed by the buyer, no binding agreement was reached. The buyer was therefore not liable to pay the deposit.

The decision demonstrates that a party should be cognizant that changing or adding any terms to an offer may constitute a counteroffer that requires acceptance. Schedules or other additional terms should be included in the original form of the offer that is intended to be accepted without further negotiation.